In
this highly researched monograph, Barrick seeks to establish the meaning of the
term bmh when it appears in non-cultic contexts in the Hebrew Bible and
in Post-Biblical Hebrew. Barrick utilizes a methodology that comprises both
lexical study and an examination of ancient Near Eastern artifacts. The latter
is claimed to contribute to understanding the mythological usage of the term in
its ancient cultural context. Barrick contends that the traditional
understanding of the term as high place may be inaccurate when the term
appears in non-cultic contexts. He then suggests ways that this information may
affect the traditional understanding of the term when it is used in cultic
contexts as well. Using information drawn from cognate languages and both
Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew, Barrick posits that the non-cultic, or secular
cases point toward an anatomical meaning for the term. Perhaps the most
challenging aspect of this monograph is Barrick's attempt to resolve the
quandary presented by a term that is seen to exhibit a topographical meaning in
cultic contexts and an anatomical meaning in so-called secular contexts.

Barrick
begins chapter 1 by critiquing the history of interpretation of the term bmh.
He claims that the usual translation of the Hebrew word bmh as high
place in English, beginning with Coverdale, harks back to the Vulgate,
where it is brought into the Latin as excelsus. The Latin term signifies
high-ness, be it metaphorical or concrete. Barrick then notes that modern
scholars have carried on with the concrete topographical understanding, even
though there is no known verbal root in Hebrew for bmh, depending
instead upon a hypothetical root meaning to be high. The reconstruction of
the hypothetical root is but the first of a plethora of complicated
philological analyses that are a hallmark of this volume, making it a highly
technical read.

Barrick
carries on, describing cognate Akkadian and Ugaritic philological discoveries
from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. According to Barrick,
Akkadian lexicographers saw the topographical plural bamâtu as cognate
with bmh, translating it as summits or heights. Similarly, when the
Ugaritic term bmt was discovered in the early twentieth century, it also
was seen as heights. W. F. Albright's translation, which associated the term
bmt with the Akkadian term bamtu, meaning back or trunk, soon
replaced this translation of the Ugaritic term bmt. Nonetheless, Barrick
notes that some form of topographical or anatomical high-ness is involved with
efforts to explain the nature of bmh in relation to the eighty of one
hundred plus occurrences of bmh in the MT that refer to places where
cultic acts were performed. He also notes that, according to the biblical
examples, bmh were not necessarily built on hills, nor is there enough archaeological
evidence to claim they were built upon natural elevations. Hence, Barrick is
keen to overturn the traditional understanding. However, he does not propose a
plausible alternative at this point in the volume.

Barrick
sees two main problems with the traditional understanding. He addresses both
from the perspective of root meaning, as discussed by James
Barr.[1]
First, he agrees with Barr, who claims that while the etymology of a given word
can reveal the past history and meaning of the word and give clues to its sense
in a text, it is insufficient to claim that this sense is to be applied to the
term in every known usage. Secondly, Barrick refers to Barr's claim that a root
meaning is either a historic statement referring to origins or an abstract
statement generalizing the meanings [of a word] in
usage.[2]
Since the etymological evidence is thin (as mentioned above, the Hebrew root
has been reconstructed: there are no actual examples) the second option must be
considered. However, as Barrick observes, consolidating the evidence has
occurred via the exegetical tradition that was influenced by the Vulgate rather
than by a careful study of the terms as they are used in the original Hebrew
text.

Thus,
in this volume Barrick seeks to rectify the situation by examining the textual
evidence in which the term bmh is found in non-cultic or secular
settings. Chapter 2 is devoted to cognate evidence from Semitic sources and
from Greek. Chapter 3 covers Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew evidence.
Chapter 4 discusses possible exceptions and chapter 5 moves the discussion in a
theoretical direction with sections on Semantic Speculation and Etymological
Speculation. A brief introduction to each of these chapters is now in order.

In
chapter 2, Barrick collates evidence from Semitic sources (Ugaritic, Akkadian
and Eblaite) and from the Greek. The first Semitic possibility is the Ugaritic
term bmt. Barrick explains that bmt is used as an anatomical
term, although the specific area of the body is debatable. He engages with the
views of several scholars, including W. F. Albright and P. H. Vaughan (whose
work Barrick has declared unsatisfactory in the preface to this
volume).[3]
Examples range from CAT 4.247, which is an inventory of foodstuffs that
includes a list of various cuts of meat, to CAT 1.5 VI II25, which describes El's
self-mutilation upon hearing the news of Baal's death. Again, each example is
argued in detail, including copious footnotes. The second Semitic possibility
comprises two Akkadian terms: bamtu and bamâtu. Here the evidence
is clearer: bamtu is an anatomical term while bamâtu is a
topographical term.

Finally,
Barrick brings in the Greek term βωμός,
which is the standard Greek term for altar. In this conversation, Barrick engages with the
findings of Vaughn, examining how βωμός,
as a Semitic loan word, might have found its way into Greek vocabulary, and with those of J.
P. Brown, who thinks the reverse might be
true.[4] At this
point, Barrick includes a rather lengthy historical and philological discussion
regarding known sacrificial practices in both the Semitic and Greek cultures.
Because this discussion focuses upon sacrificial issues, it detracts somewhat
from his goal of examining the non-cultic uses of bmh. More relevant to
the subject at hand is the use of the Greek term
βωμός as a translational equivalent
of bmh in the Septuagint, which is an important part of Vaughn's work. Barrick concludes
that the Ugaritic term bmt and the Akkadian term bamtu are likely
to be etymologically related, and that on this basis, the secular Hebrew bmh
is likely to belong to the same etymological family, sharing an anatomical
meaning (p. 33). He then speculates about how the Akkadian term bamâtu might
fit with the previous terms. While this chapter contributes some valuable
information for Barrick's overall thesis, it would be useful if the
overwhelming amount of philological, historical and cultural evidence were
presented in a more orderly fashion, something that might be accomplished by
adding more introductory and summary sentences at the section and paragraph
levels.

In
chapter 3, Barrick examines the biblical and post-biblical examples of the secular
term bmh. In many ways, this is the heart of the thesis. His goal is  to
locate the secular bmh within the semantic matrix demarked by other
Semitic words (p. 36). Here Barrick is referring to the anatomical terms:
Akkadian, bamtu and Ugaritic, bmt mentioned above. To these he
adds the Eblaite term bu-ma-tum. The relationship with the Akkadian
topographical term bamâtu is also to be explored.

The
Hebrew evidence consists of eighteen passages in the MT and Qumran texts
(fifteen occurrences and three duplicates), while the post-biblical evidence
consists of passages from Ben Sirach, and Qumran biblical and non-biblical
texts. The passages are unevenly grouped into eight sections. Unfortunately,
the lack of strong introductory sentences at the section level leaves the
reader struggling to understand the rationale for the inclusion of
certain examples in each set: are they grouped based upon historical
information, literary context, topic or other criteria? (Both historical and
topical information are important to Barrick's thesis). Secondarily, how does
each section relate to the others? These are key issues for following Barrick's
line of reasoning.

Chapter
3, section A includes Deut 33:29; 1QM 12.10 (and 19[1Q33].2 and 4QMb[4Q492]1.34);
and Sir 9:2. Barrick assigns an early date to Deut 33:29 and gives it an
anatomical meaning based upon contextual information: the passage describes a
defeated enemy cowering at the feet of the victor. He declares that 1QM 12.10
(and 19[1Q33].2 and 4QMb[4Q492]1.34) are of later origination but
are conceptually identical. He then notes that Deut 33:29 and Sir 9:2 share a
metaphorical idiom, based upon the idea to have mastery over.

Section
B is meant to deal with Job 9:8b. However, Barrick dives into this section with
a five page exposition regarding the mythological understandings of Canaan. The
first example of the use of iconographic evidence, Figure 2, The Baal au
Foudre from Ugarit, is used to illustrate mythological concepts from the
greater ANE context. Only then does Barrick associate the Ugaritic myth of
Baal's victory over the sea-god Yamm with Job 9:8b. For this section in
particular, a strong introductory sentence would help to steer the reader
through a maze of linguistic and iconographic information.

In
section C, Barrick explores the relationship between the descriptions of the
theophanic coming of Yahweh in Mic 1:3 and Amos 4:13 and the ANE Storm God
imagery where gods such as Adad, Hadad, Baal, and Teshub, are described in the same
literary terms. Barrick concludes that Israel's poets shared a similar
mythopoeic pattern with their ANE counterparts. This section includes Figure 3,
a drawing of the Hittite deities carved in rock walls at Yazilikaya, which
provides visual information for integrating ANE sources with biblical text.
Section D explores the theophanic tradition in Hab 3:19 and 2 Sam 22(Ps 18):34.

In
Chapter 3, section E (Deut 32:13a; Isa 58:14aβbα; Sir 46:9b; and
4QpsEzekb 4.12 Song), Barrick discusses dating issues surrounding
the Song of Moses and discusses a posssible mythic dimension to the term bmh
in these examples. Sections F (Isa 14:14a) and G (1QIsaiaha 53.9a)
also present various linguistic arguments regarding the term bmh in
their respective contexts. The text in section H (4QShirShabb[4Q492] 1.2.2) has
the distinction of being a newly published text. It does not, however, bring
clarity to the discussion.

After
reviewing the evidence, Barrick come to several conclusions. First, he explains
that the examples point toward an anatomical use of the term bmh in
non-cultic usage. Secondly, when the term is used topographically, it is in a
mythological sense that Israel may have inherited from the vocabulary of the
surrounding cultures. Finally, the secular bmh is found in the plural
construct, while this form is never found when the term is used in a cultic
sense.

Since,
according to Barrick, the examples in chapter 3 fail to provide evidence in
support of the traditional topographical understanding of the term bmt,
he devotes chapter 4 to the six remaining examples in order to discover
evidence of semantic development in this direction. In this chapter he analyses
Mic 3:12b(Jer 26:18bβ; Num 21:28; Ezek 36:2 and 2 Sam 1:19a
and 1:25b. Although 2 Sam 1:19a and 1:25b are most likely to support an
anatomical understanding or the alternative option (the term is comparable to
the topographical Akkadian bamâtu), Barrick finds the evidence presented
in these two examples to be too weak to support the traditional topographical
understanding of the term bmh. He then declares  it must be concluded
that that understanding rests upon no sure evidential foundation and must be
abandoned (p. 106).

In
chapter 5, Barrick draws his thesis to its conclusion. In section A, he engages
in semantic speculation regarding the meaning of the secular bmh.
Barrick notes that in his 1997 study, J. A. Emerton does not try to advance a primary
meaning of this word, but rather rejects the idea. Additionally, in agreement
with both Barr and Barrick, Emerton thinks that known usage should be the
determining factor.[5] While
Emerton is more cautious, Barrick is comfortable with drawing some preliminary
conclusions from the word bmh in these examples of actual usage. First,
he asserts that the examples support a primarily anatomical meaning. Secondly,
he notes that the specific part of the body referred to by the term has
undergone semantic development from back, (similar to the Ugaritic cognate)
to body by the time of the first temple. Third, the term has significant
mythological overtones. Finally, topographical references are most likely
metaphorical, thus a topographical meaning cannot be sustained.

In
section B, Barrick engages in etymological speculation from three perspectives.
First, he discusses the consonantal spelling of bmh, secondly he
addresses the vocalization of bm(w)ti and, finally, he
addresses the treatment of the term bmh in the LXX and Targums. He draws
several conclusions. For example, he addresses the consonantal spelling of bmh,
claiming that the secular term is actually a masculine noun from the root bmt,
whereas the cultic term is the feminine noun bmh. Additionally, he
claims that the Hebrew noun bmt would be cognate to Eblaite, Ugaritic
and Akkadian terms that exhibit an anatomical meaning. Finally, in section C,
Barrick discusses these findings as they might relate to the meaning of bmh
when in reference to a cultic phenomena. If there are indeed two roots, and if
the secular root carries an anatomical or mythological meaning while the
cultic root is ambiguous in meaning, it is necessary to establish the
connection between the two terms and to establish the semantic priority of the secular
term before such a meaning can be attributed to the cultic term. Barrick is
clear in his claim that this cannot be sustained, stating, the quest for the
biblical bamoth (sensu stricto)
in or as high places of any sort has no evidential basis and must be
abandoned (p. 120).

Barrick's
thesis is well-argued, in that he engages with myriad academic sources and
delves into all sides of the argument, whether linguistic, cultural or
historical. His research is thorough and extremely well-documented. However,
whether or not the traditional understanding of bamoth as high places will
give way to a new rendering is still up for debate. While Barrick argues
effectively that the term is ambiguous with regard to heights or high-ness, he
fails to present a convincing alternative translation. With regard to
presentation, the main problem is the aforementioned lack of consistent
introductory sentences at the section level: at times the reader is compelled
to read an entire section before the thrust of the section is obvious. Because
of the volume of technical information and advanced argumentation in each
section, the lack of introductory sentences results in a rather difficult read
at times. Thus, this is a volume for the serious scholar. ANE scholars,
particularly those interested in historical philology and cultural studies,
will appreciate this volume, as will those interested in Hebrew lexicography.